Holding

The conviction under Section 302 IPC stands because the witnesses’ relationship does not per se affect credibility and the circumstantial evidence meets the legal requirements of a complete, unbroken chain.

Summary

Munigadapa Meenaiah was convicted of murdering his brother's widow, Yellamma, by striking her with a pestle after suspecting her fidelity. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Yellamma's sons (PW1 and PW10) and a toddy shopkeeper (PW2) who saw the accused and the deceased together, the discovery of the body in front of the accused's house, and the recovery of the murder weapon based on the accused’s own information. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the witnesses were interested parties and that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain. The Supreme Court held that a witness’s relationship to the victim does not automatically render the testimony unreliable and that the circumstantial evidence satisfied the established tests for a complete, unbroken chain beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the life sentence were upheld.

Issues considered

The credibility of witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased and whether their testimony should be disregarded as partisan.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented establishes a complete chain of facts sufficient to convict under Section 302 IPC.
Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in a murder case.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidencewitness credibilitypartisan witnessSection 302 IPClife imprisonmentcriminal appeal

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 172

A MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2006)
JULY 23, 2008
B
)..,
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - I/legitimate re/a-
c tion between parties - Accused suspecting chastity of victim,
hatched a plan and murc!ered her by hitting her with pestle -
Sons of victim as also shop keeper saw victim and accused
together in night of occurrence, thereafter, dead body found in
front of the house of accused - Murder weapon recovered at
D the instance of accused - Conviction u/s. 302 and sentence
of life imprisonment by courts below - Justification· of- Held:
Justified -- Circumstances make complete chain of evidence
- Evidence of witness being close relative and consequently
a partisan witness cannot be discarded - Evidence.
E According to the prosecution case, there was ille-
gitimate relationship between the appellant-accused and
his brother's widow-Y and they were living together. Sons
of Y were living separately. The accused suspecting fi-
delity of Y, hatched a plan to. murder Y. He killed Y by hit-
F ting her with pestle and laid the body on the road in front
of his house and cleaned the blood stains in the room to \,..
throw suspicion on other persons. Before the incident
both the accused and Y had gone to the toddy shop of
PW-2 and purchased the bottle of toddy. PW-1-son of de-
G ceased, lodged FIR. Investigation was carried out. Trial
court relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 10-sons of de-
ceased as also PW 2 who deposed to have seen· the de-
ceased last in the company of the appellant and PW5 with
regard to certain recoveries. It convicted the accused u/s
H 172
MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 173
OF ANDHRA PRADESH

302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment. High Court up- A
held the order. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect cred-
ibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation B
would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations
against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if
plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court
has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to
find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground c
that the witness being a close relative and consequently
being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has
no substance. [Para 7,9 & 10] [177-G, 178-F]
Oalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953
SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1974 (3) D
SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC
614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202; State
of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of
Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram
and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776 - relied on. E

2. There is no doubt that conviction can be based
solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested
by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evi-
dence. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
F
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
..+
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to G
be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact
A sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [Paras
14 and 19] [179-G 180-A,B,C 182-A]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A Eradu and_Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
·of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; f?alwinder
Singh· v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890;
B
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C.
Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P 1996 (10) SCC 193;
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC
79; State of U. P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104;
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya
C Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v.
Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh
2003 (11) sec 261 - relied on.
o "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills
(Chapter VI) - referred to.
A
3. In the instant case, PWs 1 and 10 as well as PW2
saw the deceased and the accused together in the night
of the occurrence. In the morning; dead ·body of the de-
E ceased, was found in .front of the house of the accused.
Additionally, on the basis of information given by the ac-
cused certain articles were recovered and one of them
was the pestle used for inflicting the injury on the head.
That being so, the judgment of the trial court and the High
F Court does not suffer from any infirmity. [Para 23] [183-
D,E,F]
Case Law Reference
AIR 1953 SC 364 Relied on. Para 8
G 1s14 (3) sec 698 Relied on. Para.9
AIR 1957 SC 614 Relied on. Para 9
AIR 1965 SC 202 Relied on. Para 11
AIR 1973 SC 2407 Relied on. Para 12
H 2002 (3) sec 76 Relied on. Para 12
MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 175
~ OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

AIR 1999 SC 1776 Relied on. Para 13 A
AIR 1977 SC 1063 Relied on. Para 14
AIR 1956 SC 316 Relied on. Para 14
AIR 1983 SC 446 Relied on. Para 14
~ B
AIR 1985 SC 1224 Relied on. Para 14
AIR 1987 SC 350 Relied on. Para 14
AIR 1989 SC 1890 Relied on. Para 14
AIR 1954 SC 621 Relied on. Para 14 c
1996 (10) sec 193 Relied on. Para 15
AIR 1990 SC 79 Relied on. Para 16
1992 Crl.L.J 1104 Relied on. Para 17
D
J. AIR 1952 SC 343 Relied on. Para 20
AIR 1984 SC 1622 Relied on. Para 21
2003 (8) sec 180 Relied on. Para 22
2003 (11) sec 261 Relied on. Para 22 E
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1206 of 2006
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in F
-+ Crl. Appeal No. 179 of 2003
Bal raj Dewan for the Appellant.
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

A_ Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court upholding the conviction recorded by Ill Additional Dis-
trict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, holding the H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentencing
him imprisonment for life.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
B The accused Munigadapa Meenaiah is native of
Thimmapuram, Bommalaramaram of Nalgonda District. He
was doing fruit business at Medchal. Ten years back, his
younger brother Mallaiah died. After demise of Mallaiah, his
wife Yellamma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), along
c with her two sons took shelter at the house of the accused. Dur-
ing that period, he developed illegal intimacy with the deceased
and both were living together and her sons were living sepa-
rately. Suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused used
to pick up quarrels with her, as a result of which, he separated
o and took another portion at Medchal.
While so, the accused hatched up a plan to liquidate the
deceased. On 3.6.2001 at about 9.00 A.M. the accused went
to the house of deceased and invited her to house to consume
toddy and both of them went to the toddy shop of PW 2, pur-
E chased two bottle of toddy and brought the same to his house
in a tumbler and both of them consumed toddy. While consum-
ing toddy, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased on
the ground of her chastity. As a consequence of which the de-
ceased grew wild and abused him by denying the allegations
F of illegal contacts with others. On that, the accused brought a
pestle and murdered the deceased by hitting the same on her
head and laid the body on the road in front of his house, cleaned
the blood stains in the room and tried to obliterate the scientific
evidence so as to throw the suspicion on other persons. On the
G report given by P. W.1, a case in Cr. No.117 of 2001 of Medchel
Police Station was registered for the offence under Section 302
IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed.
Accused abjured guilt and demanded trial. The prosecu-
H tion examined 10 witnesses, and marked Exs P 1 to P 21 and
i
'

MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 177
~
OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Mos 1 to 5. On the other hand, no oral evidence was adduced A
on behalf of the accused, Ex. 01 contradiction was marked.
After scrutinizing the entire material on record and after
hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the learned District
Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under
B
~ Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to sl.fffer im-
prisonment for life.
3. The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.
1 and 10 who spoke to have seen the deceased last in the
company of the appellant. Reference was also made to the evi- c
dence of PW5 relating to certain recoveries by PW. 19. PW 2
also deposed to have seen accused and deceased together
when they purchased toddy and thereafter the dead body of the
deceased was found in front of the house of the accused with
injuries on her head and other parts of the body. As noted above, D
,. the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty.
-'
4. Before the High Court the stand was that PWs. 1 and
10 are sons of the deceased and are interested witnesses and
should not have been believed. It was also submitted that the
circumstances· highlighted do not make a complete chain of E
circumstances. The High Court did not find ai:iy substance in
the plea and dismissed the same by the impugned judgment.
5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
lant reiterated the stands taken before the High Court.
F
6. In response, learned counsel for the State supported
the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court.
7. We shall first deal with the contention regarding
interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution ver-
sion. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. G
It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual
-'\ culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foun-
dation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such
cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
~
~
A 8. In Oalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR '
1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-
~
t
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless
he or she springs from sources which are likely to be ,_'t--
tainted and that usually means unless the witness has 1--
B
cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to ~
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an I
~-
I
innocent person. It is true, w!len feelings run high and there
is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to
c drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has
a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
~

for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far
from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
However, we are not attempting any sweeping
D generalization. Each case must· be judged on its own facts.
Our observations are only made to combat what is so • f
l
often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of
prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must
be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
E
9. The above decision has since been followed in Guli ~
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in
which Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614)
was also relied upon. L

F 10. We may also observe that the ground that the witness
being a close relative and consequently being a partisan wit- + l
ness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory (
was repelled by this Court as early as in Da/ip Singh's case l
I

(supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression
G which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that
relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through tt
Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:
:>--

"We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the
High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses
H requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an
MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 179
;..- OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are A
women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their
testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the
reason that they are closely related to the deceased we
are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court B
,J
endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State of
Rajasthan' (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however,
that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of
the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
11. Again in Masa/ti and Ors. v. State of U.P (AIR 1965
c
SC 202) this Court observed: (p, 209-210 para 14):
"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on
the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested D
witnesses ....... The mechanical rejection of such evidence
>
on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead
to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down
as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence;
E
but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because
it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
12. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v.
Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407) and Lehna v. State of Haryana
(2002 (3) sec 76) .. F
.......
13. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Teja Ram and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1776) the over-insistence
on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in
criminal justice going awry. When any incident happens in a
dwelling house or nearby the most natural witnesses would be G
the inmates of that house.
...(
14. ·it has been consistently laid down by this Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
....
A facts and circumstances are found to.be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State
B of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar ~ f
Chatterjee v. State of M.P (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circum-
stances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused
is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have
c to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram
v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that
where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from cir- r
cumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must
D be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
15. We may also make a reference to a decision of this
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10
sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
E
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
~
the circumstances should be complete and there should
F
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis r..
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence .... ".

G 16. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the follow-
).
ing tests:

"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought
H to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
'
MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 181
OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
)..-
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency A
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime
B
was committed by the accused and none else; and
' (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not c
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.
17. In State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied D
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully es-
tablished and the cumulative effect of all the facts so estab-
lished must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. E
18. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circum-
stantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules
specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be F
clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with
the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the
party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstan-
tial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the
nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of G
guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the inno-
cence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any
other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be
any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled
as of right to be acquitted". H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A 19. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
on circumstantial' evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
the this Court as far back as in 1952.
20. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr V State of
8
Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed
thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
c the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
instance be fully established and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
D be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been
E
done by the accused."
21. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC
1622). Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
F has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that
the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution
cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions pre- ~
cedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be
based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established.
G Theyare:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not
'may be' established;
H
MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 183
OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only A
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is
to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
8
and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
(5) the:e must be a chain of evidence so complete as C
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
22. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan D
v. Rajaram (2003 (8) SCC 180) and State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh (2003 (11) sec 261).
23. In the instance PWs 1 and 10 as well as PW2 saw the
deceased and the accused together in the night of the occur-
rence. In the morning, dead body of the deceased was found in E
front of the house of the accused. Additionally, on the basis of
information given by the accused certain articles were recov-
ered and one of them was the pestle used for inflicting the injury
on the head. That being so, the judgment of the Trial Court and
the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. F

24. The appeal is without merit, deserves dismissal, which
we direct.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.